eagles86 wrote:The practicing attorneys I talked to seem to think the school I'm going to (high Tier 2) is worth it. I'll trust them over these elitist morons any day of the week.

Some are. If you want to practice in Houston, U of H is definitely a school to consider.

It's just a tad irritating that the market is flooded with law school grads each year because of T3 and T4 schools that aren't necessary in the first place. IMO, I guess I don't have much room to talk because of my GPA, but if you can't manage a GPA or an LSAT score that will get you into one of the top 100 then you need to consider alternative careers. Law school shouldn't even be an option for people of mediocre intelligence. That's the problem.

vanwinkle wrote:Your general cluelessness about how law hiring works combined with your blatant stereotyping of all T14 grads indicates how completely off-base your assumptions and assertions are. In short, you're an idiot, and hopefully everyone can see that.

Oh man, where do I start.

vanwinkle wrote:This is just ridiculously stupid. You're paying $180K to go to one of the top law schools in the country and it "should be a struggle to find work" afterward? WTF? This is about as pessimistic as I'm being, except you're saying it's supposed to be that way.

Perhaps we disagree on what it means to have to struggle. I personally think that applying multiple jobs and having many interviews and being forced to wait a bit to land ones first job is not the end of the world. Let's not lose perspective on this. The difference between someone going to a T14 school and a T50 school is like 4-5 points on the LSAT and .2-.3 difference in GPA (although for some schools who love splitters, having done well in undergrad isn't even required). So someone who got into a T14 school vs someone who got into a T50 school is not all that much. Perhaps because you are in at a T14 it leads you to defend its superiority and defend its supposed exclusive hold on being the only "smart law school decision". That is so ridiculous it almost isn't even worth addressing.

I suppose the general consensus on this board is that there are some 40-45k law grads and only 30k jobs...and T14ers are seriously not finding work? Which brings me to another of your points, the WSJ article about the idiot who couldn't find a job and is now selling music from his parents' basement...

You're using this to substantiate the claim that it's hard for T14ers to find jobs? This guy gave up before graduation. We also have no idea what jobs he applied to....perhaps it was only Big Law jobs and the DoJ/State Dept. Even Northwestern (my alma mater) only places 50% of their grads in Big Law...perhaps this guy was the quintessential example of "Big Law or Bust" and he seriously could give two shits about actually practicing law...we'll never know, will we?

There are THOUSANDS of law school grads coming out of really mediocre/terrible law schools at TTT and TTTT schools...these folks REALLY aren't finding jobs, because they are gonna be the 10k or so students left over after the 30k jobs are taken.

vanwinkle wrote:firms would rather take someone new who hasn't been through the process yet than someone they've already screened once and rejected

If these are such groundbreaking economic times, and the best talent truly remains out of Big Law for the moment, your claim wouldn't be the case. Law firms are full of smart people able to adapt to changing economic times. If a T14 grad was forced to take a non Big Law job in 2008/2009/2010 but are truly star-potential, they would probably adapt their hiring practices. It's basic economics....if the best talent is coming from a different place than usual, they will search in different places than usual. Even you can't presume to know how hiring practices will be in the future (nor can I, I'm just suggesting how it very well might turn out)

You seem to be combining the worst of all aspects of the legal market both before and after the change in the legal market to justify your defense that it should be T14 or nothing at all:1) The 15k out of the 45k students who won't land jobs will come from T14, who are supposedly the best ~3,000 grads in the country. (and for the bottom 5% of T14 they don't deserve work...in fact, they suck and possibly got in with a 176 and a 2.7 GPA at splitter-friendly schools)2) Law firms will continue to hire as they have in the past, letting top talent fall by the wayside because they didn't get into Big Law the way it was always done before this GROUNDBREAKING change in the legal market3) Lateral mobility isn't possible and won't be for a lawyer 3,4,5,6,7 years out of law school.

Most importantly though, you're an elitist whether you think you are or not. You think that you are in an elite class of schools that should be guaranteed everything you want, as evidenced by this:

vanwinkle wrote:This is just ridiculously stupid. You're paying $180K to go to one of the top law schools in the country and it "should be a struggle to find work" afterward? WTF? This is about as pessimistic as I'm being, except you're saying it's supposed to be that way

If someone goes to a top law school and can't muster out of the bottom 10% of the class, then they definitely don't deserve an OCI job or a great paying job right out of graduation. The difference in credentials between and T14 school and a T50 school is the difference between someone having a cold on test day. This is exactly why T14 schools don't have 100% employment rates (no matter what the economy is). The person who got a 177 on their LSAT but a 3.0 GPA in undergrad is probably a lazy-shit genius who would make a terrible associate at a law firm.

SO in short, you are an elitist who is defending your own situation by trying to convince others that going to a non-T14 top tier law school or even a strong tier 2 law school is making a poor decision when there are STILL 30,000 jobs out there to be had, and probably growing from here on out as the economy recovers. Taking on lots of debt to go to a T50 or strong Tier 2 school and even expecting to only get paid 50k/ yr is not a terrible decision. Those jobs ARE out there...they may not be the 50k/yr job as a judicial clerk or DoJ, but they are jobs and they will get raises soon enough.

GirlInTx wrote:It's just a tad irritating that the market is flooded with law school grads each year because of T3 and T4 schools that aren't necessary in the first place. IMO, I guess I don't have much room to talk because of my GPA, but if you can't manage a GPA or an LSAT score that will get you into one of the top 100 then you need to consider alternative careers. Law school shouldn't even be an option for people of mediocre intelligence. That's the problem.

mafrench wrote:What everyone fails to consider , is the fact that all grad school graduates save nursing and med school grads are having a terrible time finding work. The economy sucks for everyone, not just lawyers.

But the legal market doesn't work like the market for cooks, as you already understand, high end law is generally a one tine opportunity. Mid law is almost entirely staffed with ex Big Law associates or is really a just the local version of Big Law so that is out too if you do not get Big Law. As for a government job, realize that almost everybody who goes to law school wants one at least as a back-up. Even in good economic times t14 students were becoming DAs and ADAs. Mostly it is just the feds who are hiring as states have to balance their budget during the recession. When states start to rehire those jobs will remain hypercompetive for years even if the economy booms.

If you plan to make big money in torts, you better plan on leaving Texas as its anti-tort law has worked.

So that leaves making big money at small law, by having a lot of clients. So why do you have a lot of clients? Because you are an amazing saleswoman, networker and small business person. If you have those skills and a law degree you will be well off. Unfortunately, these business skills are hard to teach, either you have them or you do not. Most people do not.

Remember when you see a successful lawyer what you are not seeing the half that passed the bar and no longer practice. Also you are seeing people who benefits from the vast legal expansion of rights and procedures of the 20th century.

In short, at least until the baby boomers start dropping out en masse (in a job you can do when you are 70 years old) or there is a huge expansion in legal rights and gov't powers. You are looking for a big law, big gov't or big networking approach to legal success.

This is typical of the GOP. Nothing would make them happier than to see a continued rise in unemployment and watching Obama's policies fail. They'll take a boost in the Nov elections at any cost. Sad...

Regionality wrote:If these are such groundbreaking economic times, and the best talent truly remains out of Big Law for the moment, your claim wouldn't be the case ... If a T14 grad was forced to take a non Big Law job in 2008/2009/2010 but are truly star-potential, they would probably adapt their hiring practices.

This is like arguing that the world is flat. There are perfectly cogent inferences you can make that make sense and make it seem like it is true, but it is verifiable empirical fact that it isn't.

eagles86 wrote:And I agree that you really need to attend a top 100. I just cant stand for the bashing of solid schools that arent t14

That's stupid, why draw the line at 100. The practical difference between schools ranked 50th and schools unranked is basically zero.

If you don't want to be confined to a specific area, I'm going with T30. If you know exactly where you want to live and work then go to a top 100 in that state. U of H might not carry much weight on a national level, but if you want to stay in Houston it's a great choice.

eagles86 wrote:And I agree that you really need to attend a top 100. I just cant stand for the bashing of solid schools that arent t14

Although maybe i agree with you that maybe there should be a line in the sand at a 100 there is not. The line for employment purposes is much much higher with an exception made for the best local school. Without being the best local school, it does not matter much if the school you go to is ranked 90 or 125 or even lower unless the school is a notorious bottom feeder in your market.

Regionality wrote:Perhaps we disagree on what it means to have to struggle. I personally think that applying multiple jobs and having many interviews and being forced to wait a bit to land ones first job is not the end of the world.

But this is not what anyone is talking about. We're talking about no ability to find jobs even for people who are doing all that. It's not like folks are sitting around going, "Okay, where is my job? Where is it?"

Regionality wrote:Let's not lose perspective on this. The difference between someone going to a T14 school and a T50 school is like 4-5 points on the LSAT and .2-.3 difference in GPA (although for some schools who love splitters, having done well in undergrad isn't even required). So someone who got into a T14 school vs someone who got into a T50 school is not all that much. Perhaps because you are in at a T14 it leads you to defend its superiority and defend its supposed exclusive hold on being the only "smart law school decision". That is so ridiculous it almost isn't even worth addressing.

No, has nothing to do with the caliber of the students attending. This is what you and many people miss: We're not talking about any gap in the caliber of students, and we know it's a very small gap. The reason that attending a T14 is a much smarter decision is that legal hiring is based largely on degree prestige and it matters a hell of a lot what tier of school you got your degree from. It's not exclusive, but it certainly makes your job prospects a hell of a lot more decent, especially in a weak economy like this. The thing is, even at a T14 nothing is assured these days. That's how bad it is.

Again, you appear to have no clue what you're talking about. A huge chunk of law hiring is based on what tier of school you go to. The difference in student body isn't much, but the difference in prestige and value to law firms can appear huge during low hiring times like this. OCI appearances and callbacks at even lower T1 schools have fallen off drmatically, because when firms cut hiring, they cut from the lowest schools first, and with things as tight as they are now, many places aren't even interviewing below the T20 or so level.

I say "many places" and not "many firms" because I know from personal knowledge that this is true for many PI organizations as well. They're so flooded with applications they have to draw the line somewhere, and they usually draw it using rankings.

Regionality wrote:I suppose the general consensus on this board is that there are some 40-45k law grads and only 30k jobs...and T14ers are seriously not finding work?

No, the general consensus is that the statement "fewer than 30,000 jobs" is a blanket statement highlighting where the top end would be, and doesn't appear to be meant as proof that there are even 30,000 jobs out there. Based on hiring right now it looks like the actual number is likely far fewer.

Regionality wrote:There are THOUSANDS of law school grads coming out of really mediocre/terrible law schools at TTT and TTTT schools...these folks REALLY aren't finding jobs, because they are gonna be the 10k or so students left over after the 30k jobs are taken.

You're assuming there are 30,000 jobs out there to take. As mentioned above, that appears to be an estimate of where the top end is, not a statement of how many jobs actually are out there.

Regionality wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:firms would rather take someone new who hasn't been through the process yet than someone they've already screened once and rejected

If these are such groundbreaking economic times, and the best talent truly remains out of Big Law for the moment, your claim wouldn't be the case. Law firms are full of smart people able to adapt to changing economic times. If a T14 grad was forced to take a non Big Law job in 2008/2009/2010 but are truly star-potential, they would probably adapt their hiring practices. It's basic economics....if the best talent is coming from a different place than usual, they will search in different places than usual. Even you can't presume to know how hiring practices will be in the future (nor can I, I'm just suggesting how it very well might turn out)

Yes, as I said, there will be a few people out there who will be "shining stars" and able to lateral back in. But these are going to be the exceptions and not the rule. When there's such an enormous supply of new students, all of whom indicate how exceptional they are, and you can take them at starting salary instead of having to offer a higher salary to someone with experience who you've already rejected once before... firms are going to keep taking from the ready supply of cheap fresh meat. It's, as you said, basic economics.

Regionality wrote:You seem to be combining the worst of all aspects of the legal market both before and after the change in the legal market to justify your defense that it should be T14 or nothing at all:

I'm not saying that nobody should go to school ever if they can't get into a T14. That's another thing you're making up. I've told people who were fully aware of the risks that I had no problem with them choosing a lower-ranked school. However, my goal is to make people aware of those risks, which does involve highlighting how bad the legal market was before and how much worse it is now.

Regionality wrote:1) The 15k out of the 45k students who won't land jobs will come from T14, who are supposedly the best ~3,000 grads in the country. (and for the bottom 5% of T14 they don't deserve work...in fact, they suck and possibly got in with a 176 and a 2.7 GPA at splitter-friendly schools)

Again, you're making the mistake of assuming that there are 30,000 jobs out there right now. Also, your unfounded assumption that folks who end up at the bottom of their class are the splitters admitted demonstrates just how clueless you really are. I was one of those splitters, and I can tell you that I assuredly do not "suck" in law school and am nowhere near the bottom 5% or even bottom 50% of my class.

You can continue being wrong all you want, but you're still obviously wrong. Which brings me to the next point:

Regionality wrote:2) Law firms will continue to hire as they have in the past, letting top talent fall by the wayside because they didn't get into Big Law the way it was always done before this GROUNDBREAKING change in the legal market

Law firms do not consider people who were passed over once already to be "top talent". The very cream of the crop right now? They're for the most part still getting hired. Everyone else? They might have gotten hired in previous years, but that doesn't mean they were "top talent" then or that they're "top talent" now. Many of the people who are failing to find work are people that, if the hiring model does change radically to be more economically feasible, would never be hired.

Regionality wrote:3) Lateral mobility isn't possible and won't be for a lawyer 3,4,5,6,7 years out of law school.

Lateral mobility is possible, and I've already said that. However, most lateral mobility in the legal world is one of two forms:

1) Lateraling from one law firm to another law firm. This doesn't help people who got shut out very much.

2) Lateraling from truly prestigious public sector work to a law firm. As I said already, this is going to be a relatively small number of people, and people who had to fight tooth and nail to get the kind of positions that would be recognized as worth lateraling from. The DOJ does not hire an infinite number of people. It's low paying compared to law firm work, but it's still insanely competitive to get in. The same is true for most big-city DA and PD offices. You can't count on getting one of those jobs and then lateraling to a law firm because you can't count on getting one of those jobs.

Regionality wrote:Most importantly though, you're an elitist whether you think you are or not. You think that you are in an elite class of schools that should be guaranteed everything you want, as evidenced by this:

vanwinkle wrote:This is just ridiculously stupid. You're paying $180K to go to one of the top law schools in the country and it "should be a struggle to find work" afterward? WTF? This is about as pessimistic as I'm being, except you're saying it's supposed to be that way

If someone goes to a top law school and can't muster out of the bottom 10% of the class, then they definitely don't deserve an OCI job or a great paying job right out of graduation. The difference in credentials between and T14 school and a T50 school is the difference between someone having a cold on test day. This is exactly why T14 schools don't have 100% employment rates (no matter what the economy is). The person who got a 177 on their LSAT but a 3.0 GPA in undergrad is probably a lazy-shit genius who would make a terrible associate at a law firm.

Actually, it was cleared up earlier that you and I have very different definitions of "struggle", leading to the misunderstanding, so using that statement as proof that I'm an "elitist" falls flat.

Also, you keep making these ridiculous assertions, like that the people who are "struggling" are ending up in the bottom 10% of the class or aren't getting off their ass and looking for jobs. Or, better, that splitters are lazy people who end up in the bottom of their class. As judgmental as you're claiming I'm being, your unfounded biases and elitism shines through. You obviously feel you're better than these people and are emotionally upset that they're getting into schools that you don't.

Regionality wrote:SO in short, you are an elitist who is defending your own situation by trying to convince others that going to a non-T14 top tier law school or even a strong tier 2 law school is making a poor decision when there are STILL 30,000 jobs out there to be had, and probably growing from here on out as the economy recovers. Taking on lots of debt to go to a T50 or strong Tier 2 school and even expecting to only get paid 50k/ yr is not a terrible decision. Those jobs ARE out there...they may not be the 50k/yr job as a judicial clerk or DoJ, but they are jobs and they will get raises soon enough.

I hope you realize those are all based on data generated before the current economic meltdown, and that the actual numbers for this year are going to be nowhere near that.

True, but it is reasonable to assume that their relative strengths would stay the same. Thomas Jefferson will still suck more than Maryland and give fewer employment options, which is a direct rebuttal to the person who said a school ranked 50th is the same as a non-ranked school...I mean seriously that's dumb.

Last edited by Regionality on Sat May 08, 2010 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What I was saying was hyperbolic. Yeah there are some schools at the bottom of the 4th tier that are worse. But there's a huge range from like 50-150 where it is almost the same.

Also, those employment stats are garbage. If you want to trust those, you'll be in for a rude awakening.

And your hyperbole was obnoxious and terribly elitist. To suggest that someone who gets into and attends Pepperdine is at the same caliber school as someone who attends TJ or Touro is ridiculously offensive and untrue, no matter how hyperbolic you were being.

I hope you realize those are all based on data generated before the current economic meltdown, and that the actual numbers for this year are going to be nowhere near that.

True, but it is reasonable to assume that their relative strengths would stay the same. Thomas Jefferson will still suck more than Maryland, which is a direct rebuttal to the person who said a school ranked 50th is the same as a non-ranked school...I mean seriously that's dumb.

There are exceptions, of course. As someone stated earlier, strong regional schools, like UMaryland, which is one of only like two schools the entire state, will better off than their general rank may indicate. In general though, the lower one goes down the rankings, the more important it is to know the realistic and typical opportunities of one's school.

smov_operator wrote:There are exceptions, of course. As someone stated earlier, strong regional schools, like UMaryland, which is one of only like two schools the entire state, will better off than their general rank may indicate. In general though, the lower one goes down the rankings, the more important it is to know the realistic and typical opportunities of one's school.

I know this isn't what you meant but the bolded is vitally important no matter what school you go to.

Is "elitist" the word of the day or something? Is it the new "if I say this I should win" word? Because people are tossing it around like an AmEx linked to daddy's bank account. It's ridiculous and cheap and does nothing except to make the people who are now overusing it look even less capable of making a decent argument.

smov_operator wrote:There are exceptions, of course. As someone stated earlier, strong regional schools, like UMaryland, which is one of only like two schools the entire state, will better off than their general rank may indicate. In general though, the lower one goes down the rankings, the more important it is to know the realistic and typical opportunities of one's school.

I know this isn't what you meant but the bolded is vitally important no matter what school you go to.